Are pro-gay Christians really Christian? (Jesus, moral, mystic, homosexuality)

[Fluffy]

In the title, I use pro-gay to refer to people who believe that either of the definitions of homosexuality on this thread are either "good" or "okay" (ie just not "wrong" or "sinful") in some situations.

Inspired by the following comment which was posted in the thread Christian: Homosexuality a sin? I don't think who said it is relevant to the debate but if they want me to and ask, I'll cite them as the source.

Christians, or rather people who claim to be Christians, who say that homosexuality isn't a sin are one's that pretty much just ignore what the Bible says and follow their own ideas.

There are two issues here:
1) If you don't follow the Bible then you aren't Christian
2) If you follow the Bible then it is necessary to believe that homosexuality is wrong

Also, since in any homosexuality thread semantic arguments will abound, I want to draw everyone's attention to the multiple definitions of homosexuality:
1) An attraction (romantic and/or sexual) to people of the same sex
2) Sex with people of the same sex

So, what do you think?

[w00t]

I think anyone who is bigoted towards gays is unchristian. The parts of the Bbile that condemn homosexuality are 100% WRONG, imo. Jesus never condemned gays, he could have been gay himself for all we know! People are usually born gay or straight, and why shouldn't gays be able to love and be loved in their way, just as those of us who are heterosexual find love in ours?

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

There are two issues here:
1) If you don't follow the Bible then you aren't Christian
2) If you follow the Bible then it is necessary to believe that homosexuality is wrong

(1) There is no one who follows the Bible in every respect. Those who presume to say that one must follow the parts they follow, but need not follow the parts they don't follow, are setting themselves and not the Bible as the standard.

(2) I know Biblical inerrantists who don't believe homosexuality is wrong. I think they're wrong about inerrancy, but diverse and contradictory interpretations of the Bible can be held with equal sincerity.

And (3) I know I've said this a thousand times, but any faith that is based on the Bible must, by definition, be different from the faith that produced the Bible, so those who base their faith on the Bible aren't in much of a position to throw stones.

[MoonWater]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I seem to remember hearing that the in passages where the word homosexual is used the word wasn't even IN the bible until the 1900's and that the words that were translated into that had numerous other possible translations. And I also seem to remember hearing that the only passages that DESCRIBE homosexuality and don't use the actual word were written by Paul? and that he was very strict definition of sexual morality and thought that no sex was best and that any sex even inside of a marriage made one dirty. These are just some things I've heard so I may be wrong but I don't doubt that the bible is biased or mistranslated. Even if divinely inspired it was still written by man. even if those men who wrote the bible didn't make any mistakes can we really hold all the translators of the bible to the same level. Even if the original bible IS the word of God what assurances do we have that any of the translations can be held in the same light?

[robtex]

Fluffy this is a good thread. I think if we made a thread of "what is Christianity" with only Chrisitans in the thread we would never reach a concensus. I think it is a false dichotomy to present the idea that there is Christian and non-Christian but sometimes we imply that in our debates and our explanation of that faith. I think it is more true to see it as Christianties (plural) and faiths outside the range of ideas that are associated with Christianity. For instance methodists by and large view the bible stories as allegorical as opposed to events whereas other Christians see them all as true events. Some Christians feel God is a stern father figure and others a more passive loving father figure. What makes one a "Christian" is a huge question in and of itself.

Having presented the idea that there is no single idea of Christianity I would position that the current status qou or majority opinion in that group is that homosexuality is a sin, with a sin being viewed as a transgression against the will of God. Within that group I would label them as such

x= christians who see homosexuality as a sin
y= christians who do not see homosexuality as a sin
z= christians who have no opinion or cannot decide if homosexuality is a sin.

I think that x within that formula is so large and strong when compared to y that those who fall into category Z default to x by associating themselves with Christianity and not being openly for homosexual relationships in the Christian community.

As far as interpreting the Bible, interpreting is a key word choice. The fact that it has to be interpreted means there will be a variance to "truth", to use a faith based voc word applicable to this, discovered in their sacred text. As long as divinely inspired is a product of faith, the question of "Is homosexuality as sin" as applied to Christianity becomes a subjective value with variance with the current (and maybe permanent?) trend being "yes it is a sin" by such a large group within the plurality of that faith that being on the fence (aka a Z) becomes a defaulted positions to "it is a sin" (position x) until such time that the idea of homosexuality isn't such an important topic to the broad field of opinions that make up that faith.

[ChristineES]

I am one of the undecided but...

I am going to talk about Christians who believe it is a sin. Since in Christianity, Christians believe that one must repent of all sins, they see someone who is sleeping with other people and unmarried as sinning. Most Christians I know don't hate the sinner but only the sin(I know that isn't true of everyone). They are going to try to get this person to stop sinning if they see them or know that they are doing so. This does not mean that they are bigots. Tolerance is not the same as acceptance. They want all people who are Christians to repent of their sins. I know that this unacceptable to you, but that is the best I can do.

[Darkness]

The Bible is not the only source of information on Jesus. There are plenty of Gnostic texts that also describe Jesus. Jesus is even in the Urantia Book (though that has no historical merit). I consider anyone who believes in a mystical Jesus to be a Christian, except maybe for Theistic Luciferians, but that is a small loophole.

[Jeremiah]

I thought Christianity was to follow the teaching of Jesus Christ. I was also under the impression Jesus never said anything for or against homosexuality. Unless I am mistaken, I don't see how someone's relation to homosexuality deterrents someone from being a Christian.

[Vassal]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

In the title, I use pro-gay to refer to people who believe that either of the definitions of homosexuality on this thread are either "good" or "okay" (ie just not "wrong" or "sinful") in some situations.

Inspired by the following comment which was posted in the thread Christian: Homosexuality a sin? I don't think who said it is relevant to the debate but if they want me to and ask, I'll cite them as the source.


There are two issues here:
1) If you don't follow the Bible then you aren't Christian
2) If you follow the Bible then it is necessary to believe that homosexuality is wrong

Also, since in any homosexuality thread semantic arguments will abound, I want to draw everyone's attention to the multiple definitions of homosexuality:
1) An attraction (romantic and/or sexual) to people of the same sex
2) Sex with people of the same sex

So, what do you think?

Christian, by the basic definition, is a follower of the Christ, Jesus in the Bible. In the Gospels, Jesus references many Old Testament books, so it must be assumed that he view those writings as authoritative also. You really can't say that you believe parts of the Bible are true, but not others, because you run into the problem that most of the individual books reference verses from previous books. Either you believe all the Bible to be true or none of it, there's very little room for an in-between opinion. Of course there are always those who don't care about the blatant contractions of believing only parts of the Bible, or by following other religious writings in addition to the Bible, but their inconsistency is obvious.

What it comes down to is how can a person know God? Is it by trying to guess what God is like, or by reading what God said he is like? Obviously the only way for a human to know anything about God is through what he has said, we can't observe him and make our own conclusions. Thus, when people, especially ones who call themselves Christians, try to deny the truth of the Bible based upon their own opinion it only makes them look foolish. This is what I was, in summary, saying when I made that comment you quoted. Pro-gay "Christians" don't have any Biblical support for the idea that homosexuality is acceptable, just their own opinion, which is a foolish way of deciding what God is like.